The Desk.

Piercing through the mist I see

The Tempest’s eyes, so deep and soft,

His fiercest gaze doth rest on me,

As if the storm could set me free.

Beyond the lightning, endless blue,

The Tempest sky, so deep and soft,

In drifting clouds and azure hues,

A bearded face that I once knew.

Rolling through the swamp I hear,

The Tempest’s voice, so deep and soft,

Which even when the end was near,

Could shake the ground, but still the fear.

Steady now I lay me down,

In Tempest’s arms, so deep and soft,

Take comfort in the thund’rous sound,

And rest at ease, on thund’rous ground.

I offered simply my reactions, and a thoughtful, reasoned response to that which was presented. You offered me this:

"You know what Watson, screw your word AND my bet. If you feel like coming next Sunday, feel free. I will no longer cause you to get up that early in the morning just to be disappointed/offended. I'm sorry you're "possessed"; I did the worst I could. You're apparently not worth the effort."

I'm sorry if my reactions offended you, but I thought better than to censor them for the sake of feelings. I am put back, as I've never seen such hateful words from you towards anyone or anything. But go ahead and slander me. Do your "worst." Go ahead and hate me, as your faith commands you. I'm no stranger to being hated. But know this: Know that I'll still love you, as I love all mankind, and all man's nobility and reason.

So today was the first of many excursions into the lion's den, and I'd like to share with you a brief rebuttal of the sermon given this morning.

To begin with, everyone at church was creepy as fuck, which was weird cause I'm used to church people just being assholes to each other. But these weren't Methodists. After a brief session of announcements having to do with a completely misinformed interpretation of Halloween and something about a soup kitchen involving the luring of unsuspecting hobos into a trap, the preacher started talking about worship.

I was surprised to discover that his entymology of the word worship was actually correct - being derived from worth, and ship, as in the state being, like friendship. The word worship basically just means the worth-ship, or proclaiming the worthiness of a thing. When he then declared that we should worship God, my initial reaction was of course, "Why?" Why is God worthy of worship? This question kept reoccurring throughout the service and was never satisfactorily answered. Even if He is the Creator and what-not, none of that justifies submission and worship. The closest he came was saying something about God's compassion and mercy. Compassion and mercy? Obviously he couldn't have been talking about the God of the Bible. This begs another question; if we are supposed to worship God, which God, but that's a whole different bag of worms. First you still need to justify the worship of any God.

He then called upon his audience to go forth and prosyletize to the heathen masses, actually using the phrase "Because I know what's best for you." I found his presumption of knowledge about God and fate quite offensive and fascinating. Fuck you too, guy.

The next subject was that of hearing and listening to God. My main problem with this part was how to discern what is a genuinely divine revelation from hallucinations and voices in your head. He offered no suggestion. This begs the question also of the authenticity of Isaiah's visions, and the other prophets of the Bible and of other religions. Any nut can claim they've heard to voice of God telling them to do any manner of things. What are the criteria for determining who has recieved a genuine revelation. Complete submission and subservience were mentioned, and I could not help but expose the parallel to Islam. He somehow wrapped this up into some lesson about how God is trying to reach us and cares about us even if we're not listening.

Then there was a bit with a douchebag and his guitar who sounded like every other douchebag with a guitar. This led into his tired rant about how we have to approach God. Again, my initial reaction was that contradicted what he just said about God always trying to reach us, and now we have to seek him out. And we must seek with great expectation, no less, although he just instructed us not to expect anything of God, but just listen to his word and submit. But he went forth with the necessity of approaching God, again calling up Isaiah, and my mind was drawn to the story of the Tower of Babel, when God struck down those attempting humbly to approach Him, and punished them by creating many languages and tongues among them so they couldn't communicate with each other. Clearly these accounts contradict, if one is a God we must approach and another one we cannot approach.

He briefly mentioned angels, and how the angels are always seen in visions and thereafter depicted as in submission, and singing praises to God. Two problems here: of course they're seen that way, that's how Christendom has been taught to see them, so that's how they're going to be in your dreams. Secondly, according to the mythology, angels have no free will. God created them for that purpose an they have no choice because God's an asshole; it still offers no justification for why we, who have free will, should worship such a God. It has been said that the most virtuous men can be is as angels, but with free will. Well, the angels who were powerful enough to earn free will -- they rebelled.

The last main point of the sermon had to do with sin, naturally. But even here, he contradicts himself. At the beginning of this section, he claimed that entering the presence of God will reveal our sins and our lowly nature before him, but he concluded by declaring that we must repent of all sin and be cleansed of it before even entering the presence of God. That's like saying you can go into this room and it will show all the dirt on you, but you have to wash off all the dirt before you can go into the room. Get your story straight, preacher.

Between each little bit there were a couple little songs where we had to stand up and look at the power point and the douchebags up front put their hands up in the air like a couple of knobs.

At the end, just before he dismissed the audience, he told a little story about a guy who went to the church for a few months before revealing that he had not been moved by the worship, and did in fact worship Satan and was possessed. I laughed. Hard.

No, friends, I'm not trying to start a cult. And I'll give you three good reasons as to why I'm not trying to start a cult.

1. Cults are stupid. It's time we move beyond the juvenile theatrics of Crowley and LaVey, and raise a more sophisticated public discussion. Cults are often full of either complete sheep, or people who are just in it for the rebellion and shock value. Neither of those are genuine, and especially given the type of philosophy I'm proposing, neither of those would be attracted to it in the first place. Ultimately, new religious movements end up with one crazy, although charismatic individual leading a bunch of idiots wearing funny hats into a fire. And while I'd love to pretend I'm charismatic enough to gain legions of followers on my oratory alone, I'm not crazy, and I don't want idiots.

2. I have neither the means nor the inclination to start a religious movement. Simply put, it takes way too much time, effort, and resources to start a cult, plus you have to know a lot of people with the right combination of gullibility and rebellion in them. No one listens to me annyway. From where you're standing, does it look like I'd be starting a cult even if I tried?

3. And last, but most importantly, the problems I have with organized religion extend seven-fold to cults. Remember, I don't actually believe in a literal God or Satan; this is just a mythological, literary analysis. Granted, most Satanists agree with me there, but there's still no call for any kind of structure or dogma here. Like I said, it's time for us to mature beyond LaVey's Satanism, and start doing some good in the world instead of just shocking people.

Okay, some Christies have been up in arms about the part in my last post where I said Lucifer's sacrifice was greater than Christ's. I'll admit, that's not exactly true. Because Christ never really made a sacrifce at all. Allow me to further explain and clarify. I'll set this up real simple, and try to put it in terms you Christies can understand.

According to Christian mythology, Christ is God, and therefore has all of the attributes therein, including immortality. After the crucifixion, Christ supposedly rose to heaven, where he is to reside in luxury for all eternity. What sacrifice is that? What sacrifice is made when an immortal being comes to Earth to pretend to die? What sacrifice is made when a being who cannot be injured gives the appearance of injury? None. It is among the grandest of God's grand tricks. How can you sit there and tell me that Christ died for our sins and then say that Christ cannot die? You've all been horribly decieved. God has tricked you with a typical guilt trip, but what are we guilty of besides being born? What worship do we owe to Christ for his little act of pretend sacrifice? None. Secondly, how is this one temporary act supposed to account for all men's sin for all time? It is a very lopsided view of atonement if one pretend death can forgive all sins. It is as if I were to go to the courthouse and claim that I could post the bail for all the criminals ever convicted and ever yet to be convicted in that couthouse, and I gave them a handful of monopoly money. Not only is it a grossly insufficient amount, it's not even real. It's all an elaborate trick to gain your worship.

For another thing, and this is the critical difference between Christ and Lucifer, Lucifer's suffering is by choice, while Christ's whole existence and purpose was predetermined by God. Lucifer saw a situation, saw that it was wrong, and made the free decision to fight for what was right, and takes his punishment. Christ on the other hand, made no conscious choice to be a martyr; he was invented as one. There is no sacrifice in a thing simply fulfilling it's purpose. There's no sacrifice in that any more than there is in a tree having leaves, it's just what it is. Lucifer however, gave up prominence and power in paradise, something Christ got back, in order to provide for the betterment of Creation. That's a real sacrifice. And he suffers for it eternally, subject to all the unimaginable horrors of the ninth circle. He took the punishment instead of Adam and Eve when they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, and he takes on the burden of punishment for all people, sitting in Hell in your place, so that you could have the gifts of reason and logic and thinking.

Think about that the next time you read something, or hear music, or use technology, and think about the debt you owe to Lucifer for being able to live in a world where people are allowed to think, and think about the ultimate sacrifice he has made for us.

I'm going to tell you about my Lord and Savior, who made an eternal sacrifice because he so loved his creation, and wished to rescue us from sin.

Lucifer, the proper name of the devil, means light-bringer, and he is the angel of light. He rebelled against God, incurring the War of Heaven, which he lost (arguably, more on this later), and was cast into Hell, which was created specifically for him, because before the Fall, there had been no need of such a place. Lucifer represents the spirit of Democracy, freedom, love, knowledge, courage, and all such principles that honorable people hold dear, and God is a cruel, tyranical puppet-master. Read Dante's Inferno or Milton's Paradise Lost, or simply read a history book, and anyone with half a moral backbone will sympathize with Lucifer. It's the people with no internal moral convictions, and need to be told what's right and wrong who'll believe whatever God tells them.Much like the Titan Prometheus in Greek mythology, who was outcast for bringing the tool of fire to men, Lucifer is responsible for bringing the tools of light and knowledge to us. Originally, of course, he is the one who convinced Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, against the will of God. God, being a tyrant, would prefer to keep us in ignorant submission, but Lucifer is our savior, for bringing us the light of knowledge. To say that something is the work of the devil, is to imply that it is positively enlightening, that it comes from the angel of light. The Enlightenment itself, for example, was claimed by many Christians to be the devil's work, stressing reason over faith. So too of the Renaissance, and a number of other great intellectual and artistic movements throughout history. And Lucifer's work they are.
Lucifer saved us from that sinful life of submission, and his sacrifice is clear. His sacrifice is an eternity of torture in Hell, all because he loved mankind so deeply, and more than that, he knew what was right, and stood to take this punishment, laughing in God's face because he knew he was right. How can you deny the sacrifice he made for you? It is clearly greater than that of Christ, who suffered only bodily and temporarily before he rose to heaven: Lucifer's is a sacrifice for all men and all time, and he continues to suffer for us now. For this he alone is our Savior, and does not demand our worship, but deserves recognition.

There is one interpretation of the Fall that I find particularly attractive, because it solves many of the ontological puzzles involved with evil and omnipotence, etc. This is the belief that Lucifer is the original God, who created the universe and everything in it, and especially bringing Light, hence his name. Upon the creation of man, Satan rebelled, unwilling to bow to a creature lower than himself, and the War of Heaven ensued. This interpretation has Satan actually winning the war, with Lucifer, who was a benevolent God of Light, being cast out of heaven. By definition, an omnipotent God cannot lose to an inferior (Satan), and so in a puff of ontological logic, Satan instantly became God, because he had won the war, and whoever won the war would have to be, by definition, God. Now, and since the creation of Man, it has been Satan who sits upon the throne of heaven, and has been called God, and the benevolent creator and angel of light, Lucifer, was cast into Hell.